Profiles

Forums

Everything posted by Cecelia

I'll take President Warren any day.
(Well, President Elizabeth Warren, not Warren G. Harding for example)
But I'm afraid that some people will just never look past the fact she took her parents claims of their native heritage so seriously. They'll knock her for taking some perceived advantage, while at the same time ignoring all of Trump taking advantage of young people seeking education and of bankruptcy laws.

The news media isn't liberal in the slightest. It's Corporate. Which leans conservative. While they appear to support Democrats in some cases, that's an instance of them trying to get the best ratings. There's no major news media outlet that's as liberal as Fox News is conservative. If there were a Liberal version of FOX News, you'd have endless stories of how poor people are forced into prison because they can't afford bail while Roger Stone is released on his own recognizance. You'd have stories about ALEC, and constant stories about gun violence and how bad it really is. You'd never hear someone on the network say something along the lines of "This is the day Trump became President". You'd also have stories about how bad wealth inequality has gotten daily. Most media outlets are fairly moderate -- not liberal. They fiscally lean conservative, but socially lean liberal. When people say the media is LIBERAL what they are doing is attempting to move the scale to the right even more. They're taking the proverbial line in the sand and moving 'left-wing' from "Everybody left of George W. Bush" and moving it to "George W. Bush and Leftward". When really Hillary Clinton should be a moderate, but with Conservatives drawing the scales she's far left wing (Making Bernie and AOC really far left wing). This plays to their advantage and allows further right-wing people to claim moderate (which gives them a lot more influence with other moderates) while not allowing moderate dems to claim moderate at all. By dismissing the Moderate Corporate News as liberal, we're letting them draw that line in the sand. Moderate = Liberal. This has, in some ways, backfired as moderate leftists have become more loyal to the Democratic Party (though should we go too far left, they may jump ship). But moderates have moved themselves into the conservative category (despite being on the other side of the line as far as conservatives are concerned) because many moderates prefer 'balance' (Both sides are bad!) to actual issues. That's why conservatives are constantly moving that line back. And the idea that the media is liberal is a big part of how they're doing it. They're defining anything not PURE CONSERVATIVE as Liberal.

I really like the new Congresswoman from New York. She's got charisma, she's progressive, and she gives me hope for my generation. I'd love to see her as President one day. (Obviously she's not eligible for 2020, or I'd be calling for AOC2020). I know she's got Republicans and Fox News already trying to attack her. And establishment Dems seem a little worried about her. But I really think she's got a chance to be President one day. I hope that day comes, because she's the President we need and deserve.

On the potential candidates listed:
The No's: Michael Avenatti (Calif.) 47
Big no from me. Not Avenatti, not ever. Joe Biden (Delaware) 75
Another big no from me. I'd hold my nose and vote for him over Donald, but I'd have a hard time voting for him in 2024 unless the Republicans put up someone equally despicable. Michael Bloomberg (NYC) 76
Another big no. He shouldn't run. Especially after he said that legalizing marijuana was the dumbest thing he ever heard. Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio): 66
We don't want to lose the only Ohio seat we'll have. So another no.
Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) 49
His lack of support for public education makes this a No for me. He was friends with Betsy DeVos on her campaign to privatize education.
Hillary Clinton (NYC) 76
No. Too much baggage. She shouldn't run again. Mark Cuban (Tx) 60
Not even a Democrat. So NEVER.
Andrew Cuomo (NY) 60
No thanks. He's quick to pick fights with other liberals.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) 37
Nope. Never. She blames 'both sides' for the shutdown. That should immediately disqualify her. Her past statements concerning LGBT are also very concerning.
Frmr AG Eric Holder 67
I'd walk away from this one fast and furiously.
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) 60
No, even though I'll vote for him for Senator every time it comes up. He's not progressive enough. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (Va) 61
No thanks. he's a pretty good governor, but I wouldn't want him as President. Frmr Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD) 55
No thanks. Not after his performance in 2016. Frmr Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD) 55
No thanks. Not after his performance in 2016.
CEO Howard Schultz 65
Not a billionaire, thanks.
Sen Mark Warner (Va.) 63
No. I barely like him as a senator. I'd prefer someone more progressive. Both in that senate seat and in the white house.
=====================================================================================================
The Yes's: Julián Castro (Texas) 44
I'd support him.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) 51
Sure, I'd support her.
Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) 54
She gets a yes from me, but I'd be careful of her because a lot of people I know don't like her much because she's a 'cop'.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Tex.) 46
He'd get my support probably. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) 77
I'd support him, but he's not my preferred choice. He's just getting up there in age.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) 69
Yes, but I'm worried about the whole "Pocahontas" stuff with her in regards to the primaries.
=====================================================================================================
The Maybe's:
Gov. Steve Bullock (Montana) 52
Never heard of him.
Myr. Pete Buttigieg (IN) 36
I like him, but I don't think he's well known enough. Rep. John Delaney (Md.) 55
No idea who that is.
Myr. Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles) 47
No clue who it is.
Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) 66
Don't now much about him.
Gov. Jay Inslee (Wash.) 67
Another one I don't know much about.
Jason Kander (Missouri) 37
Don't really know much about him.
Rep. Joe Kennedy (Mass.) 38
Another one I don't know much about.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) 58
She gets a 'Maybe' from me. Not sure sh'es who I'd want.
Myr. Mitch Landrieu (New Orl.) 58
Know very little about him. Sen. Jeff Merkley (Oregon) 62
No idea who that is.
Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass) 40
No idea.
Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) 45
No idea.
Deval Patrick (Mass) 62
Don't know enough about him.
Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio) 45
Don't know enough about him.
Tom Steyer 61
Don't know enough about him.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) 37
Don't know enough about him.
Oprah Winfrey 64
I don't know where she stands on most of the issues. Andrew Yang
Adding him in since he announced. I'm not sure he has the name to succeed. But at least he supports UBI so yay!

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) - Would love to see it happen, but doubt it does. former VP Joe Biden (Delaware) - No thanks. He'll be 78 in 2020. former Sec. State Hillary Clinton (New York) - She shouldn't even consider running again at this point. Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) - Can't say I know much about him. Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey) - I really hope not, I'd have real trouble voting for him. Even against the likes of Donald Trump. And if I have trouble voting for him, you know the hardcore Sanders supporters probably will too. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) - Don't know much about her.. but if she can make a name for herself in the next 4 years she might be a good choice. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) - Another one I wouldn't mind seeing, though she has a bit of a conservative record during her time in the state govt iirc. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (New York) - No thanks. Gov. Jerry Brown (California) - Too old. Gov. Jay Inslee (Washington) - Never heard of him. Gov. John Hickenlooper(Colorado) - Way too moderate. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (Virginia) - As a Virginian... no thanks. Sen. Mark Warner (Virginia) - See: Terry McAuliffe Sen. Al Franken (Minnesota) - I like him a lot, but I'd rather see someone a little younger run. I don't think he's interested anyway. Sen. Kamala Harris (California)- Doesn't have much of a record. Might hurt her that she doesn't think cops should have to wear body cameras.
Sen. Chris Murphy (Connecticut) - Know nothing about him. Joseph Kennedy III (Massachusetts)- Who? Gov. Steve Bullock (Montana)- Who?
Mark Cuban - Billionaire vs Billionaire. No thanks.
Bernie Sanders - Will be too old.
Katy Perry - Cause I'm coming at you like a dark horse Are you ready for? Ready for? A perfect storm? Perfect storm? Cause once you're mine Once you're mine There's no going back

Hillary is not progressive. And that's the problem. She's a war-hawk who supports wall street. Voting for Jill Stein at the very least sends the message to Democrats that we're tired of what they trot out there, and we're not afraid to leave the party behind.

What's often forgotten is that you can't just start a political party of your own. Especially since Republicans and Democrats control the rules to getting to the debates. You have to have 15% in the polls 2 weeks before the first debate in order to get to the debates in the first place. This is a ridiculous requirement. Even Ross Perrot would not have enough to have gotten to the debates under this system. So long as they control the system--and rest assured they do--there's nothing anyone who wants to do something about it CAN do about it.
If it weren't for the ages of the SCOTUS Justices, Hillary would NOT have my vote. I do not trust her. She's not nearly progressive enough, and is way too war-hawkish. When she echoed Trump's sentiments to 'close' the internet, it terrified me. And it should terrify others. She's far too cozy with wall street too. She will be incredibly unlikely to get my vote in 2020 if she wins in 2016.

Hillary will favor corporations. I'm under no illusion that she won't, or that any congress will stop her. Unfortunately the rules that the Democratic and Republican parties put on the debates (requiring 15% in the polls 2 weeks before the first debtae) makes it impossible for a third party candidate to be viable. When the choice is between a slightly right-wing warhawk who is at least liberal on social issues, versus a theocrat or a crazy xenophobe, the choice has to be the slightly right-wing warhawk. At least until they change the rules for the debates.

Mother Teresa was pretty corrupt, and a pretty terrible person overall. She was good friends with Jean-Claude Duvalier, who stole millions from the poor. She often baptized the dying without regard to their personal wishes, and generally thought suffering was a good thing.

Republicans, as always: Do as I say, not as I do. Schools? Open Carry Zone! Not like there's anyone IMPORTANT there.
Theaters? Open Carry Zone! Nobody worth protecting there either.
GOP Convention? Gun Free Zone! Can't risk any attacks there.

Not a fan of the Garland nomination. A bit disappointed in Obama, really. Sri Srinivasan should have been the nominee. Garland seems like a conservative with a little liberal dressing. Republicans are turning it down, and they can easily say "Oh we don't like his stances on gun issues'. What they really want though is to win the Presidency so they can overturn Obergefell v Hodges and Roe v Wade.

http://usatodayhss.com/2016/arkansas-football-coach-suspended-again-for-incendiary-remarks As a US History teacher myself, I have to ask how he didn't know what separation of church and state is and why it's so important. I also have to ask why he thought it was a good idea to bring religion and politics into the classroom. Totally unprofessional. And Republicans are worried we're the ones indoctrinating their children?

Libertarians, I find, trust big business while distrusting big government, despite the fact that big business practically owns the government we have now. They don't want everyone to have an equal opportunity, because they don't think it's necessary. Much like Republicans they think everyone makes their money on their own merit. Nobody should get any assistance for anything.

Many Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) don't even realize they're racist. My father-in-law is very racist (and very much a Republican). But he doesn't recognize it. He said the other day "I don't want another black man in the white house. One black man was enough. If we get another black man in the white house, he'll give black people even more rights." Many people will say they have black friends, etc.. then say terrible things about black people. They assume they aren't racist, despite having racist attitudes.

-You want a theocracy
-You care about the people who need help the most. No, not the freeloading children who are staving. I'm talking about corporations. The truly oppressed.
-You want the government to stop controlling people -- except for what they do in their bedroom, their reproductive habits, and what drugs they take. -You think a boss has the right to enforce his religious beliefs on his employees -It bothers you that there are "Gun Free Zones"

I've always had a distaste for the argument about anti-choice (I refuse to call them "pro-life") being all about 'protecting the defenseless'. This would imply that women who have abortions are 'killing' their fetuses. It's an attack on women who aren't able to care for a child, or who may have been raped. It implies that they care more for themselves than the defenseless, when that's simply not true. It's an implication that may not be intended. But it's an implication that is there nonetheless. The fact is, abortion will always be necessary. Even with the technology discussed in the opening post. What about when a fetus has a fatal birth defect? When it puts the woman's life in danger and such technology would put the woman's life at more risk? How about pregnancy by rape? That tends to be one of the agreed upon exceptions by sane people (lunatics like to bring up that pregnancy from rape is a gift from god). Should a woman have to allow her child to be born with the DNA of the man who raped her? That sounds unethical and inhumane to me.
Instead of focusing on some device that would allow the unborn to be born... we should be focusing our attention on reducing abortions through creating more effective birth control. And distributing more birth control to those who cannot afford it. Women who do not get pregnant don't have abortions. The subject of debate should be focused on reducing pregnancies, not eliminating abortion to protect the unborn. Abortion isn't evil. It's a medical procedure. And women should not be judged by if they choose to have an abortion or not, no matter what their reasons may be.